National Review Online
By Andrew C. McCarthy
July 9, 2011

‘You can clearly see what they are doing in Iraq.” Sen. Lindsey Graham was talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran, specifically the death trade plied by the mullahs, their Revolutionary Guard Corps, their Hezbollah operatives, and the assorted jihadists under their control. And while the plying is being done “in Iraq,” it is being done against America.

Senator Graham elaborated that Iran is setting the stage to frame the long-scheduled withdrawal from Iraq as a case of the United States being “driven out,” a cowardly retreat under fire. Nor is this happening solely in Iraq. Iran’s fortification of the Afghan Taliban also continues at a steady clip. It may even be spiking now as the planned drawdown of American forces gets under way. Again, the mullahs are determined to pose as Allah’s avengers, casting the infidels out of Dar al-Islam.

They are getting plenty of help from the Obama administration. The U.S. withdrawal is being driven by the political calendar, not conditions on the ground. Thus our enemies — and Iran has always been our principal enemy — get to make it look like whatever they want it to look like.

So, as 33,000 U.S. troops begin making their quietus, the Taliban and its jihadist allies are emboldened, not vanquished. In fact, Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reports that superior Iranian rockets enable our enemies to fire from 13 miles away, twice the range of the Taliban’s former arsenal. With U.S. air power paralyzed by the demagoguery of Iran’s new best friend, Hamid Karzai — the Afghan president minted by our government’s Islamic-democracy project — it gets awfully difficult to defend against such attacks.

Defending themselves is about all our troops will be able to do in the coming months. Karzai and the mullahs have finalized a joint defense and security agreement — in the jihadi pincer, Iran arms both the sharia “democracy” and its Taliban opposition; it’s the American troops getting squeezed. Meanwhile, fresh off the anti-American duet Iraq’s Pres. Jalal Talabani crooned with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the mullahs’ recent “anti-terrorism” summit, Iran’s vice president visited Baghdad this week to call on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, another democracy project success story. As they forged deeper economic, security, and cultural ties, they also marked a month in which 15 Americans were killed in Iraq, making it the worst month for U.S. forces in over two years.

You may recall that time in 2009 as the fleeting period of euphoria after President Bush’s troop surge transformed Iraq just as it was about to become a humiliating American failure. According to received Washington wisdom, the surge was a triumph — indeed, so spectacular a triumph that even President Obama now claims the Iraq mission as his own, as if we all share the Obamedia’s amnesia about their hero’s prominence in Harry Reid’s anti-surge legion of “This war is lost” Democrats.

To be sure, Iraq is Obama’s kind of foreign-policy triumph. The strategy was not to defeat the enemy but to stabilize a sharia democracy and protect a population that remains rabidly anti-American. So we have built Baghdad into a reasonably stable Iranian client state, pulled ever deeper into the mullahs’ orbit.

Iran has spent eight years killing Americans in Iraq. We responded by doing nothing. Attacking the source of the problem might have jeopardized Iraq’s fragile new government, whose leading factions are beholden to Tehran, a complication we chose to paper over. In fact, even as democracy-project enthusiasts crowed about Iraq’s purported evolution into a key American ally against the jihad, the Bush administration acceded to Maliki’s demand that Iraq not be used as a staging ground for U.S. operations against other nations (translation: against Iran, the kingpin of the jihad). It seems the only country we’d be permitted to attack from Iraq is Israel. And that’s no joke: Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski actually suggested that the U.S. would shoot Israeli bombers down over Iraq if they dared try to take out Iran’s ripening nuclear arsenal.

Of course, the 15 Americans killed in Iraq last month are fewer than the 19 Americans that Iran killed in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in the Khobar Towers bombing. And it is considerably less than the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. Noting that the mullahs had been supporting al-Qaeda since the early 1990s, the 9/11 Commission gingerly related sketchy evidence of Iranian involvement in the suicide hijackings that vaulted the U.S. to war: the provision of safe conduct into and out of Afghanistan for al-Qaeda operatives, the “remarkable coincidence” (to borrow the commission’s phrase) that Hezbollah leaders ended up on the same Iranian transit flights as the future hijackers, etc. Iran even harbored al-Qaeda leaders, including two of Osama bin Laden’s sons, in the years after 9/11.

Yet, these were dots the commission was content to leave unconnected. And no one — not the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, and not Congress — has shown much interest in revisiting them, despite the hundreds of Americans Iran has since killed, and continues to kill.

Here at home, a phony debate rages over whether conservatives are becoming “isolationist” — whether we are the Right’s version of George McGovern’s “Come Home America” Left. But most of us have never been isolationist. We’ve been realists about the enemy — specifically, about the need to defeat rather than court the enemy.

In the days after 9/11, President Bush outlined the only plan that had a chance of achieving victory: Hunt terrorists down wherever they operate and treat terror-abetting regimes as terrorists. That should have been the mullahs’ death knell. Instead, we’ve tried to fight a war the enemy prosecutes globally as if it were happening in only two countries, neither of them Iran.

Putting aside the merits of a Marshall Plan analogue for the Muslim Middle East, the original Marshall Plan was undertaken only after total victory was achieved over America’s enemies. There could be no free, independent, pro-American Europe without Normandy and D-Day and Hitler’s annihilation. If you leave the enemy undisturbed while indulging in self-congratulation over democracy and the Arab Spring, you’re choreographing a farce. I’d call it “Springtime for Khamenei,” except the tragic joke is on us.

“Intervention” in 2011 has become what “negotiation” was in the Obama hey-day of 2009 — something purportedly good for its own sake. The inconvenient reality is that, if it is not based on a strategy designed to defeat America’s enemies, it is inevitably counterproductive. It gives our enemies countless opportunities to show, quite dramatically, that we lack both resolve and a cogent plan.

It is not isolationist to conclude that if we are not in it to win, we are wasting time, billions of dollars that we don’t have, and precious lives. I may be wrong to deem it highly unlikely that true democracy will ever take in Islamic soil. I may be wrong in concluding that the Arab Spring is diplo-lipstick on a pig better seen as the Islamist Ascendancy. But I do know one thing for certain: Freedom has no chance of advancing in the Middle East, any more than it would have advanced in Europe, unless we conquer the enemy.

There was a moment in time when we knew that. It was long ago, though, and perhaps beyond recapturing by a war-weary, financially tapped-out nation.

If we’re not in it to win it — for victory, not for tilting at windmills — we should come home. But regardless of what we do, what was true in 1983, when Hezbollah bombed our Marines, remains true today: Iran is at war with us, whether we choose to engage or not. If we are not going to win, we are going to lose. Happy talk about democracy and springtime won’t obscure the fact that there is no middle ground.

This article was originally published here. 

Iranian Incursion

By Peter Brookes
Family Security Matters

Everyone is going there: The Russians, the Chinese—even the Europeans. That’s right, Latin America is hot with its abundant natural resources, especially energy, and the potential of emerging markets.

Unfortunately, the Iranians are looking to make their mark in Latin America, too.

You know, the Middle Eastern country that has the suspicious nuclear program, is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism and represses its people—yes, that Islamic Republic of Iran.

It’s pretty much a given that an Iranian presence won’t be a welcome addition to the neighborhood for us. Tehran is brewing up some serious trouble for Washington, looking to develop a string of strategic distractions for America in its own hemisphere, including establishing close friendships with the region’s anti-Yanqui, radical, populist Left.

And nowhere is that more apparent than in Venezuela.

COZY IN CARACAS

One of the most visible displays of Tehran-Caracas ties is in the relationship between their heads of state: Venezuela’s caudillo President Hugo Chavez and Iran’s inflammatory President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The two presidents have not only visited each other’s capitals perhaps more than a dozen times in recent years, they’ve also publicly proclaimed their personal proclivities for the other by bestowing their nation’s highest honors on one another.

The two strongmen, who like to masquerade as democrats, have also talked of creating an “axis of unity” against the United States and speak fondly of building a post-American new world order. In fact, according to the BBC, Ahmadinejad said of his Venezuelan compatriots in 2006: “The distance between our countries may be a bit far, but the hearts and thoughts are very close.”

Beyond the personal ties and shared worldview of the two power-hungry leaders, their countries have developed economic relations, especially on energy issues, which should come as no surprise, considering both states are energy giants. (Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producer and fifth-largest of natural gas; Venezuela is the 10th-largest oil producer and ranks 28th in natural gas. Both are aggressive members of the OPEC oil cartel.)

Their enthusiastic energy engagement is paying dividends for Iran as Venezuela has offered to ship refi ned gasoline—a potential target of economic sanctions—to the Middle Eastern state should the international community ever significantly tighten the economic noose around Tehran’s neck over its wayward nuclear program.

Oddly, while Iran is a major oil producer, it refines as little as 20 to 40 percent of its gasoline needs, making up the rest in imports. As such, Caracas has pledged to provide some 20,000 gallons of gasoline per day to Tehran, reducing the possibility of petrol privation and more protests against the regime.

Economic ties aren’t limited to the energy sector, either, but also include some industrial pursuits in areas such as autos, tractors, petrochemicals, construction materials—and even bicycles. The viability of these ventures remains to be seen. The Turpial and Centauro—the Iranian-Venezuelan automobiles—are not selling
quite like pabellon criollo (Venezuela’s national dish).

Indeed, Iran claims it has invested $4 billion to $5 billion in Venezuela, which is significant since the regime has essentially ruined the Iranian economy since it wrested power from the Shah in 1979—and the money could be better used at home to placate its restive populace.

But it is not only the mullahs’ monetary mismanagement that worries Washington.

Also of concern is the capacity of Venezuela and Iran to work together to evade punitive banking sanctions over Persia’s proliferation perfidy, allowing Iranian financial concerns—especially the military—to continue to move rials (Iran’s currency) around the world and keep a pipeline to Western goods and technology open—
especially for Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Making the situation worse, Venezuelan banks may also be involved in moving and laundering money not only for the Iranian regime but also for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which rely on Tehran’s support.

But the Tehran-Caracas axis goes deeper than politics, economics and finance.

According to press reports, the two nations inked a Memorandum of Understanding, pledging full military support and cooperation. Some secretive security shenanigans are already ongoing.

In 2009, Turkish authorities seized more than 20 containers of “tractor parts” bound from Iran to Venezuela. But instead of tractor parts, the containers were carrying materials used in the production of explosives, raising questions about the purpose of the two states’ business ventures.

Their security ties seem to be pretty intimate, too. Some Iranian “advisers” are reportedly embedded with the Venezuelan military. Indeed, a 2010 Pentagon report to Congress on the military power of Iran wrote: “IRGC-QF [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Forces] maintains operational capabilities around the world. … [R]ecent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela.”

(The IRGC and Qods Forces are the Islamic Republic’s internal and external paramilitary shock troops, who protect the regime inside the country and train, fund and equip allied terror and militant groups, as well as conduct covert military operations outside Iran such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Security and intelligence cooperation between Iran’s highly capable Ministry of Intelligence and Security and Venezuela’s Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services is almost certain, as well, especially on American issues.

Particularly interesting is how Iranian advisers and agents are likely getting to Venezuela. While details are murky, as far back as 2007, Iran Air and Conviasa (Venezuela’s national airline) began a regular, co-chaired “commercial” fl ight linking Tehran, Damascus and Caracas, with occasional stops in Beirut to pick up “passengers.”

Some on the Venezuelan and Iranian sides have tried to pass the flight off as meeting the untapped business and tourism needs of the two countries. While the business angle may be plausible, the assertion about the need for direct flights for tourism is laughable. Even more troubling is this item from the State Department’s 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism:

“Passengers on these [Tehran-Damascus-Caracas] flights were reportedly subject to only cursory immigration and customs controls at Simon Bolivar International Airport in Caracas. Venezuelan citizenship, identity and travel documents remained easy to obtain, making Venezuela a potentially attractive way station for terrorists.
International authorities remained suspicious of the integrity of Venezuelan documents and their issuance process.”

It’s clear the State Department is concerned that Venezuelan documents could lead to Tehran’s operatives, including terrorists, getting false passports from Caracas, facilitating their travel around the region. And considering Iran’s regular threats against America, one could easily see Tehran using Caracas as a stepping-off point for attacking U.S. interests in this hemisphere—or even the homeland.

That’s not all.

Unfortunately, one can’t help but be concerned that the Russians have promised to build at least one nuclear reactor for the Venezuelans, announced during a meeting between Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this spring.

And one could assume that Chavez is green with envy at how Ahmadinejad’s nuclear program gives American leaders strategic indigestion—and causes the world’s potentates to (repeatedly) beat a path to the Iranian despot’s door.

According to some analysts, the odds of Chavez pursuing only peaceful nuclear power rather than moving in the direction of a secret weapons program once a program gets started are about as likely as Iran doing the same: zero.

Not only could Tehran, which is already enriching uranium, help Caracas with a nuclear program that Moscow starts, it could also launch that program for Caracas itself—which, not surprisingly, Chavez has hinted at publicly.

Troublingly, there are also reports that Iran may be prospecting for uranium ore in Venezuela. Some experts speculate that Venezuela may have the world’s largest untapped uranium deposits—perhaps as much as 50,000 tons—and that, of course, could heavily aid both countries’ nuke programs.

While still prospective, of course, there is the possibility that Tehran, which has an increasingly capable ballistic-missile program, could sell or help Caracas develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching American shores. It’s noteworthy that the distance from Caracas to Miami is about 1,400 miles, which nearly corresponds with the current range of Tehran’s medium-range Shahab-class ballistic missile; longer-range Iranian missiles are expected.

But it’s not just Venezuela that Iran is courting.

INROADS ELSEWHERE

Iran has also enhanced its relations with other elements of the anti-American Latin Left crowd in Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador, which are countries run—not surprisingly—by leaders close to Venezuela. In fact, some have insisted that Tehran’s relationship with Managua, La Paz and Quito was brokered and grown at the
encouragement of Caracas as part of its rogue networking efforts.

To this day, experts suggest that these relationships are still managed largely by the Chavistas, who seek to develop an alliance that will serve as a counterweight to Washington in the region. One exception to Venezuela’s lead might be Nicaragua, where Sandinista re-tread President Daniel Ortega has been an ardent fan of the Iranian Revolution for years. He reportedly sent Ahmadinejad a note after Iran’s crooked elections last summer expressing his “love and admiration.”

Ahmadinejad has characterized his new friendships with Ortega, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Bolivia’s Evo Morales as part of a large revolutionary, “anti-imperialist” movement in the region. As a gesture to these new alliances, Bolivia, like Venezuela, has reportedly lifted visa requirements for passengers arriving from Iran, literally opening the door to an infl ux of troublesome travelers.

Besides the reported provision of economic aid to its intercontinental kindred spirits, Iran is also providing educational opportunities, according to the 2009 congressional testimony of Douglas Farah, a journalist and think-tanker. Farah claims Iran is providing “diplomatic training” of 30 to 90 days in Tehran to government workers from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and the Communist Party of El Salvador.

Instead of the art of negotiating, international relations theory and how to work a room at an embassy soiree, the Latin visitors are instead being taught intelligence, counterintelligence and crowd control. (And who knows what else.)

Besides its ties with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, Iran has also opened embassies in Chile, Colombia and Uruguay in recent years in an effort to expand its diplomatic depth in the region.

Its ties with regional powerhouse Brazil led to reciprocal visits of Admadinejad and Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva and a controversial Brazil-Turkey-Iran nuclear fuel swap deal.

Iran has also tried to make inroads into Paraguay, and some assert it has also approached Mexico about tighter ties. These efforts are deeply worrisome considering Mexico’s proximity and long border with the United States.

As others have pointed out, considering the differences in culture, language, geography and religion, Iran’s venture into the heart of Latin America is striking—and bold, but not surprising.

It is evidently nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on anti-Americanism and Washington’s perceived inattention to the region. Finding new friends also assists Tehran press its dark international agenda and undermines any attempts to isolate the Islamic regime over its nuclear program.

But it’s not just Iran that is coming to the region: Its “friends” are, too.

TERROR TIES

There is little question among experts that Hezbollah operatives out of Syria or Lebanon are passengers on these mysterious Iran Air-Conviasa flights that touch down in Caracas regularly. The Lebanese Shia terrorist group, which has attacked Americans before (e.g., 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing), is a close ally of Tehran and has been active in Latin America for years—and may be becoming more so.

Hezbollah is involved in gun- and drug-running, as well as money laundering, in Latin America. But it also attacked the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and bombed a Jewish community center in the same city in 1994. (The IRGC-QF were also likely involved.) Previously concentrated in the tri-border area of Paraguay, Brazil
and Argentina, experts now say Venezuela has become the largest base for the Iran- and Syria-backed terror group outside of the Middle East.

While the U.S. media focus understandably on al Qaeda, Hezbollah is considered one of the most capable terror groups in the world today, rivaling Osama bin Laden’s acolytes for its abilities in the dark arts. Just ask the Israelis. They have tangled with Hezbollah for years, most recently in a war in the summer of 2006, which
many analysts say ended in a draw. And some observers believe the Chavistas may be welcoming Hezbollah operatives to assist the narco-terrorist group, FARC, which has found refuge in Venezuela and been fighting U.S. ally Colombia for decades. Hezbollah may be training die-hard Venezuelans to fi ght Americans, too.

Moreover, the Venezuelan regime would certainly welcome Hezbollah’s help in dealing with the United States—and Hezbollah, for its part, would certainly appreciate operating space close to American interests and territory. Of course, in the short term, worries involve what Hezbollah might do in the region should there be military action against the Iranian nuclear program by Israel—or the United States.

SOUND THE ALARM

Considering Iran’s political, economic and security policies writ large, the encroachment of the Islamic regime into this hemisphere is bad news—from start to fi nish—and a presence that is inimical to American interests.

The notion that Iranian involvement in this region is not a threat is a foolish one. Revolutionary Iran has had a hand in shedding American blood for over 30 years, including today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran, via its new friends, is looking to create strategic diversions for the United States in its own neighborhood by fomenting instability and subversion. It’s also looking to gain support in international institutions for its radical causes—not to mention enhance its leadership’s diminished image at home by looking big abroad. A failure to take measures to check Iran’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere will only allow anti-American, anti-Israeli, terror-supporting, oppressive, non-free market agendas to take root in our neighborhood.

Iran, with base camps to our South, is as big a threat as it is in the Middle East—maybe more so, considering its proximity to America. It’s not just an “annoyance” as some have suggested, usually to account for inaction.

Accordingly, it’s clear Washington must immediately take strong steps to oppose the growth—indeed, rollback the existence—of any pernicious Persian influence in Latin America. This is no time for a wait-and-see approach. •

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Brookes is Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Originally published here http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7574/pub_detail.asp.

Miles Amoore in Kabul

TALIBAN commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill Nato forces in Afghanistan.
The commanders said they had learnt to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have been responsible for most of the deaths of British troops in Helmand province.
The accounts of two commanders, in interviews with The Sunday Times, are the first descriptions of training of the Taliban in Iran.
According to the commanders, Iranian officials paid them to attend three-month courses during the winter.
They were smuggled across the border to the city of Zahidan, in southeast Iran, an hour’s drive from training camps in the desert.
Instructors in plain clothes provided daily exercises in live firing. The first month was devoted largely to teaching the Taliban how to attack convoys and how to escape before Nato forces could respond.

During their second month they were shown how to plant IEDs in sequence so that the rescuers of soldiers wounded in one blast would be caught in further explosions.

The third month was spent on storming bases and checkpoints. A hilltop fort was among the locations used for practice by a Taliban platoon.

Local mediators persuaded the commanders to travel to Kabul to tell their stories. They were interviewed on separate occasions on the edge of the city.

Western officials troubled by growing Iranian support for the Taliban describe the accounts as credible. A military crackdown in Pakistan is thought to have encouraged Taliban leaders to look to Iran for more help.

One of the commanders said: “The military is pressuring the Taliban in Pakistan. It is certainly harder to reach places that were once easy to get into. I think more of my fighters will travel to Iran for training this year.”

Karl Eikenberry, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, recently described signs of co-operation between Iran and the Taliban as disturbing.

“Iran or elements within Iran have provided training assistance and some weapons to the Taliban,” he said.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has publicly backed his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai. But American and British officials have accused Iran of playing a double game by giving covert backing to the Taliban.

Shi’ite Iran had long opposed the Sunni-dominated Taliban. The reason for the change was summarised by one Taliban commander who said of the Iranians: “Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans.”

click here to view original aricle